International Journal of Clinical Oncology

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 214–219 | Cite as

Impact of a multidisciplinary tumour board meeting for upper-GI malignancies on clinical decision making: a prospective cohort study

  • Pieter van HagenEmail author
  • Manon C. W. Spaander
  • Ate van der Gaast
  • Caroline M. van Rij
  • Hugo W. Tilanus
  • J. Jan B. van Lanschot
  • Bas P. L. Wijnhoven
Original Article



The Dutch guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of upper-GI malignancies recommend review of patients by a multidisciplinary tumour board (MDT). The purpose of this study was to determine the effect on clinical decision making of an MDT for patients with upper-GI malignancies.


All physicians participating in the MDT completed an electronic standardised case form to delineate their proposed treatment plan for the patients they presented, including the intent of treatment and the modality of treatment. This therapeutic or diagnostic proposal was then compared with the plan on which consensus was reached by the MDT.


A total of 252/280 (90.0%) forms were completed and suitable for analysis. In 87/252 (34.5%) of the case presentations, the MDT altered the proposed plan of management. In 29/87 (33.3%) cases, a more extensive diagnostic work-up was decided upon. In 8/87 (9.2%) cases the curative intent of the proposed treatment was altered to palliation only. In 2/75 (2.7%) cases, however, it was decided that a patient could be treated with curative intent instead of the proposed palliative intent.


In over 1/3 of cases, the diagnostic work-up or treatment plan is altered after evaluation by a multidisciplinary tumour board. This study supports Dutch guidelines recommending discussion of patients with upper-GI malignancies by a multidisciplinary tumour board.


Oesophageal malignancies Multidisciplinary Tumour board 


Conflict of interest

The authors declare they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Kaifi JT, Gusani NJ, Jiang Y et al (2011) Multidisciplinary management of early and locally advanced esophageal cancer. J Clin Gastroenterol 45:391–399PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Siersema PD, Rosenbrand CJ, Bergman JJ et al (2006) Richtlijn ‘diagnostiek en behandeling oesofaguscarcinoom’ [guideline ‘diagnosis and treatment of oesophageal carcinoma’]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 150:1877–1882PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Junor EJ, Hole DJ, Gillis CR (1994) Management of ovarian cancer: referral to a multidisciplinary team matters. Br J Cancer 70:363–370PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Davison AG, Eraut CD, Haque AS et al (2004) Telemedicine for multidisciplinary lung cancer meetings. J Telemed Telecare 10:140–143PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wheless SA, McKinney KA, Zanation AM (2010) A prospective study of the clinical impact of a multidisciplinary head and neck tumor board. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 143:650–654PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Newman EA, Guest AB, Helvie MA et al (2006) Changes in surgical management resulting from case review at a breast cancer multidisciplinary tumor board. Cancer 107:2346–2351PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pfeiffer SI, Naglieri JA (1983) An investigation of multidisciplinary team decision-making. J Learn Disabil 16:588–590PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ruhstaller T, Roe H, Thurlimann B et al (2006) The multidisciplinary meeting: an indispensable aid to communication between different specialities. Eur J Cancer 42:2459–2462PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Greer HO, Frederick PJ, Falls NM et al (2010) Impact of a weekly multidisciplinary tumor board conference on the management of women with gynecologic malignancies. Int J Gynecol Cancer 20:1321–1325PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Menges M (2011) Gastric cancer: where is the place for the surgeon, the oncologist and the endoscopist today? World J Gastrointest Oncol 3:10–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Quiros RM, Bui CL(2009) Multidisciplinary approach to esophageal and gastric cancer. Surg Clin North Am 89:79–96, viiiGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Low DE (2011) Update on staging and surgical treatment options for esophageal cancer. J Gastrointest Surg 15:719–729PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chang JH, Vines E, Bertsch H et al (2001) The impact of a multidisciplinary breast cancer center on recommendations for patient management: the University of Pennsylvania experience. Cancer 91:1231–1237PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bumm R, Feith M, Lordick F et al (2009) Impact of multidisciplinary tumor boards on diagnosis and treatment of esophageal cancer. Eur Surg 39:136–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Devitt B, Philip J, McLachlan SA (2010) Team dynamics, decision making, and attitudes toward multidisciplinary cancer meetings: health professionals’ perspectives. J Oncol Pract 6:e17–e20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leo F, Venissac N, Poudenx M et al (2007) Multidisciplinary management of lung cancer: how to test its efficacy? J Thorac Oncol 2:69–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Grotenhuis BA, van Hagen P, Wijnhoven BP et al (2010) Delay in diagnostic workup and treatment of esophageal cancer. J Gastrointest Surg 14:476–483PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Society of Clinical Oncology 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pieter van Hagen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Manon C. W. Spaander
    • 2
  • Ate van der Gaast
    • 3
  • Caroline M. van Rij
    • 4
  • Hugo W. Tilanus
    • 1
  • J. Jan B. van Lanschot
    • 1
  • Bas P. L. Wijnhoven
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryErasmus Medical CentreRotterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of GastroenterologyErasmus Medical CentreRotterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Medical OncologyErasmus Medical CentreRotterdamThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of Radiation OncologyErasmus Medical CentreRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations